The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned a decades-old precedent that guided judges on when they could defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of law in rulemaking. This landmark decision eliminates a commonly used analytic tool and raises numerous questions about future legal proceedings.
A Major Shift in Judicial Deference
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court’s majority held that the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision from 1984 improperly prioritized the executive branch’s legal interpretations over those of the judicial branch. This decision marks a significant shift, removing the principle known as Chevron deference that has influenced judicial review of administrative actions for nearly 40 years.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Deference : Victory for the Fishing Industry
The ruling is a significant victory for the fishing industry plaintiffs who sought to dismantle Chevron deference. This change introduces substantial uncertainty regarding how lower courts will now evaluate competing legal arguments in the complex arena of rulemaking litigation.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Deference : Details of the Cases
The Supreme Court’s decision stems from two key cases: Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. Both cases involve fishing groups challenging a 2018 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rule that required fishers to bear part of the cost of having federal compliance monitors aboard their vessels. The plaintiffs argued that the NMFS overstepped its authority under the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
